C.R.A.P. Sunday - Bachelor edition

Catch-up Rants And Platitudes - #3

It was a SHOWER! I've even used it a second time now, how refreshing. And thanks to kapgar for his suggestion, not only did the mouthwash fix my breath without all that effort of brushing, but it also gave me quite a nice little buzz. Shall we begin?!?

• Burris - I was hoping to be done ranting on the whole Blago / Burris thing. Now Burris has submitted an affidavit that appears to contradict his prior testimony. Briefly, he swore up and down (and under oath) before being sworn in that he was not approached for any sort of money in exchange for the Senate seat, and that he had no contact with Blago's camp. Now he is admitting to being asked to contribute to Blago's campaign fund prior to the appointment, and that he spoke with several members of Blago's camp. He is, of course, still claiming no wrongdoing, saying that no contribution was made, and that omissions were made in his testimony secondary to interruption by follow-up questions. The real story -- I'm guessing this is his last-ditch effort to avoid outright perjury as further evidence is revealed (i.e., recorded conversations between Burris and Blago's brother). Of course, the timing is after Blago's impeachment trial, so Burris's new version of events is too late to hurt him in that arena (not that it would have mattered, of course).
  
  Regardless, it's clearly shady that he was not forthcoming about these details -- and further proof of his questionable moral character. Kinda funny that he announces his "listening tour" of Illinois as this news breaks, reminiscent of his mentor Blago that went on a media tour as his impeachment trial began. So are we gonna see another circus of replacing our junior Senator before the 2010 election? Or just leave him there and laugh heartily if he even attempts to run at that time?!?


• Drew Peterson - the drama never ceases. Now they appear together on the "Today" show. Not only are they living together again and looking forward to marrying as soon as possible (hopefully AFTER he manages to divorce his "missing" wife), but there was absolutely NO MENTION of her prior statement about the engagement being "a stunt." What happened to her fear for her safety and concern about his habit of becoming bored with his wives? What about the ex-boyfriend she had moved back in with during the week or two that she was separated from Drew?!?
  
  My prediction -- he needs to marry her before his trial, so she cannot be called on to testify against him. It's obvious she knows something -- she's been very well coached about not answering questions relating to Stacy. I would not be surprised if her "resumption" of their relationship was in exchange for either 1) some sizable bribe, or 2) to prevent some sort of retaliation. Even a "Jerry Springer Girl" like her would not flip-flop so completely without some external influence. This story is far from over ... unfortunately, the drama will likely continue to play out over the next several years. I'd rather jump to the punchline and deny them further rounds of their 15 minutes. Otherwise my head is gonna explode.


• Just Shoot Me - Chicago is a pretty violent town. Robbery, mugging, rape, stabbings, shootings -- we have more than our fair share. People are frightened, I understand that. But please, please tell me how putting more guns on the street in "law abiding citizens'" hands is supposed to help that. They are trying to pass a concealed carry law, being pushed by a group of college students at DePaul University of all places. More guns will only increase the number of victims, whether we have "innocent bystanders" wounded by trigger-happy nervous people thinking they are being followed in dark parking garages, or by would-be defenders having their own guns used against them, or by angry citizens who reach for a handy weapon in a moment of rage. We need to get guns *OFF* the streets, not "levelize" the playing field by increasing fear that ANYONE might be carrying a gun. If this is really about helping women defend themselves, why not distribute mace as broadly as they hand out condoms? Non-lethal alternatives could be just as effective, and are more likely to be readily used by those uncomfortable with making the choice to fire a gun. Which would hopefully be ALL of us civilians.
  

Ok, back to the job hunt.

---

News photos lifted from Chicago Sun-Times. Showerhead and pink gun stolen from Google images. No, I don't think that qualifies for "concealed carry" - even if it took you several minutes before you spotted the gun.